FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Jeffro

Joined: Jan 22, 2009

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 05:00

harvestmouse wrote:

MonkeyMan576 wrote:

It's like playing baseball and saying using the double switch is against the spirit of the game, because other coaches utilize it better than you. At some point the argument becomes moot, because it's in the rules and it's not going to change.

No, you just don't get it. Against the spirit of the game, would be like being able to use a double switch like tactic (just briefly read about it) on a table top or computer game version of baseball, which differs the real game and/or from intended in the game version.

From what I can tell, fair play rules don't go down too well in professional American sports compared to win at all costs (within the rules of the game).

I would say MonkeyMan has it exactly correct. There is no "rule" per say against either.

And don't lump it with American sports... there are plenty of cheap shitty players of sports in the rest of the world... no shortage of them anywhere.

MonkeyMan576

Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 05:01

I'm pretty sure stalling works exactly as the designers of blood bowl intended it to.

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 05:03

Jeffro wrote:

harvestmouse wrote:

MonkeyMan576 wrote:

It's like playing baseball and saying using the double switch is against the spirit of the game, because other coaches utilize it better than you. At some point the argument becomes moot, because it's in the rules and it's not going to change.

No, you just don't get it. Against the spirit of the game, would be like being able to use a double switch like tactic (just briefly read about it) on a table top or computer game version of baseball, which differs the real game and/or from intended in the game version.

From what I can tell, fair play rules don't go down too well in professional American sports compared to win at all costs (within the rules of the game).

I would say MonkeyMan has it exactly correct. There is no "rule" per say against either.

And don't lump it with American sports... there are plenty of cheap shitty players of sports in the rest of the world... no shortage of them anywhere.

Yeah I don't get the shot at 'american sports' which is basically just football, because everything else is played everywhere else anyway.

The worst 'poor sports' I have ever seen all play sissykick anyway, I mean my god, the amount of whining and faking and flopping in one of those matches is mind blowing.

But I don't really see what any of that has to do with stalling.

If someone really can't stand it then guess what? Blood Bowl just isn't their game. Sorry, no need to change it around just because some guy sucks at the game.

Zlefin

Joined: Apr 14, 2005

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 05:05

I dislike stalling; but it is difficult to establish a clear anti-stalling rule. And people much prefer precise rules than vague judgment call ones (in part because they can be enforced much more objectively and consistently).
I do feel it goes against the spirit of the game world (only in cases where there's no bashing either). I think that if one team is standing next to the end-zone not scoring, and the other team is lying on the ground and not getting up (or not on the pitch at all), then the crowd would invade the pitch out of boredom. If there's plenty of brawling go on, then of course the crowd would be fine with it.
So if I were establishing an anti-stall rule, my enforcement mechanism would be pitch invasions to shake up the board state (and a rule that if one side runs out of players on pitch it's an auto-TD).

As to benches, I would like to see some rules to allow for bigger benches; maybe have bench players not count for as much TV. As always, a lot of the issue is that bloodbowl is not designed for perpetual play, and has issues there, but it works fine in leagues that just start with fresh teams, run for awhile (12-30 games) and then stop.
I'd like to see a version of bloodbowl that's designed, from the start, for perpetual play.

DarthPhysicist

Joined: Jun 14, 2015

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 05:07

I would agree on one small point about stalling. If I'm playing gobos in a league and my opponent is dorfs (humor me for a minute), and the dorf starts stalling as he systematically starts murdering my gobos, I'm gonna concede and rob him of his TD. Now, that's not to say the dorf player SHOULDN'T try to farm my gobos; that's fair. But as the gobo player, I'm not inclined to stick around to get slaughtered either if I have more matches to play.

_________________
Using derivative humor since 2005.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 05:22

Jeffro wrote:

And don't lump it with American sports... there are plenty of cheap shitty players of sports in the rest of the world... no shortage of them anywhere.

I didn't mean it like that or to be offensive. It's a tendency of a different cultural outlook and I wasn't commenting on sportsmanship.

I certainly feel there's a different outlook with say British and Americans. British are famous for loving the plucky loser.

It's a nuance thing, but I certainly feel it. I'd also say Spanish and Italians have another outlook. Germans again different. You tend to feel that here with the different outlooks.

That's not to say all people from these countries have the same outlook, just the tendency. America has their own sports and own outlook. It's none of my business if I'm not interested in US sports and it's none of my business to say whether it's good or not.

licker wrote:

Yeah I don't get the shot at 'american sports' which is basically just football, because everything else is played everywhere else anyway.

I promise you I wasn't taking a shot. You could say it's more of the right approach. They are professional players who the fans pay money to watch. They support them and it's their duty to win for them. So you see less situations of 'unwritten laws' in US 'style' sports than say cricket; which you could argue is a bit archaic.

Definitely not a knock, just a comment on different outlooks.

MonkeyMan576 wrote:

I'm pretty sure stalling works exactly as the designers of blood bowl intended it to.

And I'm pretty sure, you aren't pretty sure at all.

How JJ reacted to being confronted by a player who could play and how he played within the rules (rather than a group of fantasy heads having fun and playing to the spirit) would suggest that they may have tried to combat it.

I don't know either way mind, just my hunch.

Jeffro wrote:

I would say MonkeyMan has it exactly correct. There is no "rule" per say against either.

And we are back to square one. There is no rule, so that's why whether it's a 'spirit of the game' issue. It's well within the rules, but is it within the spirit of the rules?

Due to the issue being repeated again and again by new coaches suggests that to their mind (and generally the GW game way of thinking) it is a disrespect of the spirit of the rules.

I've also given a very good example, that being myself. I feel it does break the spirit of the game, but that it's necessary. In fact it adds a level of tactics to the game. So let's not touch it.......unless the fix made things better than they are now, which is highly unlikely.

Matthueycamo

Joined: May 16, 2014

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 05:22

MonkeyMan576 wrote:

That's like people complaining about 1-0 soccer(football) games. Most people agree that 1-0 games aren't as much fun to watch, everybody loves watching goals and if every soccer game could be 10-9 everyone would be happy. There are arena soccer games that are like that, but it is not top level football. Defense, as well as stalling, is not sexy, but it is solid fundamental sport. I will take someone who is trying his best to win a game, and know that I am playing against some of the best coaches the sport has to offer on the best bloodbowl website, than try to change the rules to make it a sexier game like on Cyanide. Yeah, it has flashier graphics, but it does not have the community or strong coaches that we have here. We are 11 pages into this forum topic, and I don't see any post where the original poster is acknowledging our points. It's always a "yeah, but", "yeah, but", "I don't thinK" or some equally silly argument. If you want sexy, go back to Cyanide. I know losing isn't fun, or losing when being stalled against, but it is part of the game and not going anywhere. The argument that stalling is against the spirit of the game is ludicrous, winning is the spirit of the game, and if I lose, even against a staller, i respect that the staller is probably a better coach than me.

Hell no, I would be crying over how bad the defence is......

Nothing better than a juicy slide tackle sending the other guy sprawling across the turff.

_________________

DLE College 7s

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 05:26

licker wrote:

The worst 'poor sports' I have ever seen all play sissykick anyway, I mean my god, the amount of whining and faking and flopping in one of those matches is mind blowing.

I think this is fair. And it's a good point. To the outsider this seems to break the spirit of the game, but it's ok or........... accepted as something that happens for those in the know.

So isn't this a little like the stalling issue?

ArrestedDevelopment

Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 05:30

Eh, I understand what Harvestmouse is saying, it's pretty simple: stalling removes the suspension of disbelief for some people since it revolves jarringly obviously around the fact that the game is turn-based. And being quite unsubtly reminded of the fact you're playing a game, does, invariably, ruin some people's enjoyment of it. I believe the phrase is a pining, high pitch wail of "my immersion!".

I'd also guess there's more than a few people around who remember it as "first to three scores", and still long for those days when they realise their opponent is playing for 1-0 or 2-1 and there's nothing they can do about it. The game has evolved a lot over the years, and I don't really think you can simply say "as the developers intended" with regards to a lot of the directions meta and gameplay have taken.

[edit]

harvestmouse wrote:

British are famous for loving the plucky loser.

You try saying that in Scotland at the end of every 6 nations or Rugby World Cup!

_________________

Matthueycamo

Joined: May 16, 2014

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 05:32

DarthPhysicist wrote:

I would agree on one small point about stalling. If I'm playing gobos in a league and my opponent is dorfs (humor me for a minute), and the dorf starts stalling as he systematically starts murdering my gobos, I'm gonna concede and rob him of his TD. Now, that's not to say the dorf player SHOULDN'T try to farm my gobos; that's fair. But as the gobo player, I'm not inclined to stick around to get slaughtered either if I have more matches to play.

So you rob him of 3 spp and give him 5 spp. Makes perfect sense.

_________________

DLE College 7s

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 05:52

harvestmouse wrote:

licker wrote:

The worst 'poor sports' I have ever seen all play sissykick anyway, I mean my god, the amount of whining and faking and flopping in one of those matches is mind blowing.

I think this is fair. And it's a good point. To the outsider this seems to break the spirit of the game, but it's ok or........... accepted as something that happens for those in the know.

So isn't this a little like the stalling issue?

It's like the stalling issue in that if you don't like it as an outsider you simply stop watching the game I suppose.

If you mean to tell me that whining and faking and flopping are all 'intended' aspects of sissykick then that's news to me, seems even the most ardent fans of the sport whom I know don't think that way, and I'm not talking about other Americans.

But we're not here to debate what is intended or not in actual sports (though I will comment that the list of 'unwritten rules' for baseball at least, but also football and basketball is fairly long, the issue of 'fair play' is one that the players generally police themselves though).

We're talking about a fantasy themed board game. We're talking about a game which IS NOT actually supposed to mimic any specific REAL sport, no matter how many similarities people want to cock up to other sports.

Stalling breaks your immersion? I don't buy it. If you're just playing for immersion then there are so many other aspects which should break it first (if we're talking about immersion in terms of an actual 'real time' game) that complaints about stalling just come off as someone who is not very good at the game (or inexperienced, or whatever), and so maybe the game just isn't going to be your cup of tea.

It cannot, and should not, be everything to everyone.

Not that you (HM) are arguing otherwise, I know you accept and understand why stalling is a necessary part of the game as the rules currently stand. Changing those rules to remove stalling change the nature of the game greatly. Which is fine if that's what people want. Going back to first to 3 TDs is sort of a start, but it still suffers from 'stalling' to not allow 2 turn or 3 turn or whatever at the end of halfs, or to stalling to continue to depitch the other team before you score.

I don't know that there's really anything which can remove it completely. I do know that the concept of 'stalling' exists pretty much everywhere though, and objections to it are not so much based in wanting a more 'realistic' game, as they are based on not being good enough at the game, or at simply not liking the game in it's current state.

Matthueycamo

Joined: May 16, 2014

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 05:52

I think the spirit of the game thing is a red herring with stalling. When it is the main way a number of teams can win matches and be sucessful it is at some point a design feature and must have been presumed that coaches of such races will do that. The way they designed the rosters is testament to that in my opinion. Spirit has nothing to do with it.

The spirit of blood bowl is really the opposite of cricket. Cricket is about fair play coming from the old set up of gentlemen and Professional and the values of the victorian era upper middle and above classes. Blood Bowl is almost the total opposite of that really. The spirit of blood, fouling, secret weapons and trying to kill the opposing team. All the crazy teams in the fluff and the things some of them had tried to do to cheat. This stalling being against the spirit is looking at the game through the wrong pair of glasses. The spirit being suggested is just not there in the fluff in the game rules and the in the rosters and skills.

People are looking at it with eyes more like cricket than Blood Bowl to decide it is against the spirit.

_________________

DLE College 7s

Jeffro

Joined: Jan 22, 2009

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 06:05

Yeah... let's stop looking at it like a "Spirit of the Game" thing, because the fantasy setting of Bloodbowl allows for any kind of cheating, murderous, and foul play.

Let's look at stalling like playing for a Fool's Mate (or Scholar's Mate) in chess. If you have it done against you, then you either weren't paying attention or weren't able to defend against it. Learn to play better. Don't get your panties in a bunch about how you want others to play the way you do. Play better yourself, or stop playing. End of discussion.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 07:34

Jeffro wrote:

Yeah... let's stop looking at it like a "Spirit of the Game" thing, because the fantasy setting of Bloodbowl allows for any kind of cheating, murderous, and foul play.

Don't get your panties in a bunch about how you want others to play the way you do. Play better yourself, or stop playing. End of discussion.

Again you can use as many real world examples as you like. The thread must have 50 already. It still doesn't explain my feelings.

Why do I feel it's goes against the spirit of the game and do not do it when playing by myself. However, I realise the need for it and encourage players to do so when playing against me?

Don't get me wrong.........I did say my explanation is a theory and just that. I'm not sure myself, bar than it feels wrong.

It is in a way the end of the discussion as I don't think we should try fixing it. I doubt many experienced coaches feel it should be fixed either. However we should show empathy with those that struggle to get their head around the concept when they first come to the site.

Note: Cricket I used as an example between USA/UK not a reference to BB. I really very much doubt that renaming the end of play at the end of the 3rd quarter 'afternoon tea' would work very well.

pythrr

Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Posted: Apr 28, 2016 - 07:42

licker wrote:

Jeffro wrote:

harvestmouse wrote:

MonkeyMan576 wrote:

It's like playing baseball and saying using the double switch is against the spirit of the game, because other coaches utilize it better than you. At some point the argument becomes moot, because it's in the rules and it's not going to change.

No, you just don't get it. Against the spirit of the game, would be like being able to use a double switch like tactic (just briefly read about it) on a table top or computer game version of baseball, which differs the real game and/or from intended in the game version.

From what I can tell, fair play rules don't go down too well in professional American sports compared to win at all costs (within the rules of the game).

I would say MonkeyMan has it exactly correct. There is no "rule" per say against either.

And don't lump it with American sports... there are plenty of cheap shitty players of sports in the rest of the world... no shortage of them anywhere.

Yeah I don't get the shot at 'american sports' which is basically just football, because everything else is played everywhere else anyway.

well, maybe Baseball too. Who else plays that? Japan (cos you bombed them and then gave them baseball as a "we're sorry" gift)? Canada (not that we count). Cuba. And now .... I'm out of countries. Probably some other latino countries a bit, but mainly to try and get green cards, one imagines.

Ice Hockey (if that is an american sport, and not just a North East sport) is more widespread -- you've even got the Ruskies play that!).

Basketball is widespread, even if most other countries kinda suck at it. I mean, it's big in Europe, but does anyone really care? No? No.

Are we out of "American" sports now? NASCAR? Ricky-Bobby FTW!

_________________